Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airbnb Competitor Checks IDs: 'We Don't Want to Trade Security for Volume'

betabeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: Airbnb Competitor Checks IDs: 'We Don't Want to Trade Security for Volume'

#81

Post by ErrantX »

ghshephard wrote: post #7
wccrawford wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have to be careful, though, as this kind of thing can be considered libel or slander if not 100% true, and collusion even if it is true. Having an industry-wide blacklist will almost definitely run afoul of the law.

Bars do this all the time in areas where there are problems - they scan your ID and then share the information with other bars, particularly if you get booted. In the United States, if you make a good faith claim about someone, it's pretty hard to win a libel suit, and, I suspect, it would be even harder to claim that grading an individual rises to the level of slander/libel, particularly if you provide a mechanism t…

Even better example; Casino's - I know people barred in pretty much every UK Casino, because they share the info.

Re: Airbnb Competitor Checks IDs: 'We Don't Want to Trade Security for Volume'

#82

Post by pbreit »

pbreit wrote: post #6

'We Don't Want to Trade Security for Volume' = 'we don't want to be successful'.

Why the downotes? Some further explanation I guess: Early at PayPal, we had lots of competitors making pronouncements like this and what they seemed to miss is that the actions they were complaining about were the very ones that made us successful.

Re: Airbnb Competitor Checks IDs: 'We Don't Want to Trade Security for Volume'

#83

Post by SemanticFog »

cdp wrote: post #34

Is anyone else finding it interesting to see how a bootstrapped startup is implementing tighter security standards and accepts slower growth as a consequence while the startup du hour, fueled by massive amounts of other people's money, is pursuing growth at all cost and with little regard for the consumer? Reminds me a little of the YouTube founders who wanted to grow and be acquired as fast as possible and willingly…

They have every right to promote their differentiation. Speaking as someone who lives in a great part of Manhattan and is often out of town, I've never used AirBnb because I don't trust their verification. I will definitely look for a competitor that does more thorough screening, even if the volume and rental price is lower. It's worth it to me.

Re: Airbnb Competitor Checks IDs: 'We Don't Want to Trade Security for Volume'

#85

Post by nupark2 »

run4yourlives wrote: post #74
nupark2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's quite different. Vacation properties are set up for that purpose, with insurance, limited on-site personal property, etc. There have been online vacation property rental sites for years. AirBNB, however, sells itself as a mechanism for making some extra cash on your own actual day-to-day residence.

It doesn't really matter whether the property you are letting is your primary residence or not, really. What matters is that you aren't using it. AirBnB caters to shorter, less formal stays than a normal rental site. It also presents a much improved User experience. It also implies that you can get in on this game if you don't actually own the property, but whether or not you can legally do this is up to you to know,…

It doesn't really matter whether the property you are letting is your primary residence or not, really.

It matters in terms of security. If you're using the property, that either means that you have a considerable amount of personal information and valuables on-site, or that you'll have to take them off-site to secure them.

If the property is a dedicated vacation home, then this will generally not be the case, and coupled with deposits, property insurance, etc, the risk to the owner is significantly reduced.

Good luck getting property insurance on an apartment you sublet.

Re: Airbnb Competitor Checks IDs: 'We Don't Want to Trade Security for Volume'

#86

Post by untog »

SemanticFog wrote: post #83
cdp wrote: post #34

Is anyone else finding it interesting to see how a bootstrapped startup is implementing tighter security standards and accepts slower growth as a consequence while the startup du hour, fueled by massive amounts of other people's money, is pursuing growth at all cost and with little regard for the consumer? Reminds me a little of the YouTube founders who wanted to grow and be acquired as fast as possible and willingly…

They have every right to promote their differentiation. Speaking as someone who lives in a great part of Manhattan and is often out of town, I've never used AirBnb because I don't trust their verification. I will definitely look for a competitor that does more thorough screening, even if the volume and rental price is lower. It's worth it to me.

There's a fine line, though. If the cost goes too high, why not just stay in a hotel? They have a specific budgetary window to aim for.

Re: Airbnb Competitor Checks IDs: 'We Don't Want to Trade Security for Volume'

#87

Post by blantonl »

dadkins wrote: post #24

Honest question: how is Airbnb or any of their competitors different than vacation rentals? You rent a house for a week when the owners aren't using it. Often the key's in a combo box or they mail it to you. The only real protection is a security deposit which you pay upfront. The concept has been around for ages.

In a vacation rental house, other people will spend far more time in your place then you will and you plan accordingly. You might have a locked closet with your own stuff, but it probably consists of towels, toiletries and clothes - not electronics, birth certificates, financial documents, and highly-personal information.

Re: Airbnb Competitor Checks IDs: 'We Don't Want to Trade Security for Volume'

#88

Post by saygt »

johngalt wrote: post #71
mbreese wrote: post #3

Any of Airbnb's competitors are going to use this to their advantage. Rightfully so too... I didn't even know about Roomorama until this story. The biggest part of the story though was thrown in at the end: The harrowing story of the Airbnb user EJ prompted Ms. En Teo to reach out to her competitors in order to set a precedent for sharing information about sketchy users, so if she gets a report about misbehavior she…

Careful with that type of data sharing. It can fail the game theory test. Lets say I'm a selfishly amoral actor in the room rental industry, and I want to lock up the market for myself. I can silence all my competition by releasing blacklist information on a number of current users, then those users will be banned by other sites and forced to continue using my site. Banks do this today with their info sharing through…

ChexSystems is pure evil.

Re: Airbnb Competitor Checks IDs: 'We Don't Want to Trade Security for Volume'

#89

Post by pseudonym »

hugh3 wrote: post #52
pseudonym wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how often major news outlets seem to jump on "THE INTERNET IS BAD LULZ" stories, I wouldn't be surprised to see this picked up and used as a reason to push that internet browsing history law [1], or some other net neutrality thing. Does it make sense? No. Will it help anything? No. But logic rarely matters when you're trying to be alarmist. [1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110728/17280315306/house-...

I hope you see how But logic rarely matters when you're trying to be alarmist. is ironic when you're saying I wouldn't be surprised to see this picked up and used as a reason to push that internet browsing history law [1], or some other net neutrality thing.

I realize, but reading Techdirt for any length of time is a really, really quick way to kill any faith you have in the idea of an open internet and/or fair IP laws actually going through, at least in the US.
Post reply on HN